Amendment No. 1, in the name of Deputies Michael Collins, Nolan, Danny Healy-Rae, Michael Healy-Rae, Mattie McGrath and O'Donoghue arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 13 are related and will be discussed together. We have two hours and the quicker we can deal with these amendments, the quicker we can get through them all.
Sea-Fisheries (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 11, line 23, after “detects” to insert “, beyond a reasonable doubt,”.
This amendment is about a sea infringement being beyond reasonable doubt to provide fairness and equality for fishers under the law and the Constitution, otherwise, the Government will create a new and dangerous precedent for treating fishers as second-class citizens under the law. Equally, this would give power to a fisheries office to make judgment on the balance of probability or, in other words, on a 50.1% probability, that a potential infringement action occurred.
The area is a key concern for fishermen and fisherwomen. If this amendment was accepted, at the very least, the legislation would become fair. The application of penalty points on a licence means a criminal sanction and will have very serious implications for masses of fishing boats. Importantly, Irish law recognises two principal standards of proof. The criminal test is that a charge must be beyond reasonable doubt, while civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities.
The meaning of these terms would seem obvious to anyone trained in basic statistics science. In terms of the confidence intervals, one is inclined to accept that the probability it is true exceeds 95%. Beyond reasonable doubt appears to be a claim there is a high probability that the defendant's guilt is true. The criminal convictions require a higher standard than the scientific norm. Some 99% or even 99.9% confidence is required for one to be thrown in jail or to have a criminal conviction recorded against one's name, whereas the phrase "on the balance of probability" surely means that the probability the claim is well founded exceeds 50%. However, brief conversations with experienced lawyers establish they do not interpret the terms in these ways.
One famous illustration supposes one is knocked down by a bus which one did not see and that is why one was knocked down. Company A operates more than half the buses in the town and in the absence of other evidence, the probability one's injuries were caused by a bus belonging to company A is more than one half, but no court would determine that company A was liable on that basis. A court approaches the issues in a different way. One must tell us a story about oneself and the bus.
Legal reasoning uses a narrative rather than a probabilistic approach and when the courts are faced with probabilistic reasoning, the result is often a damaging muddle, such as the flawed testimony in the UK of Sir Roy Meadow on child deaths that led courts to wrongfully convict grieving parents of murdering children. That clarifies our amendment No. 1 on a sea infringement being beyond reasonable doubt. The whole Bill, to be honest, stinks to the high heavens. It is anti-fishing and I will certainly oppose it.
We have had many exchanges with the Minister about this. He knows the history of it. When he was the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on agriculture, food and the marine, his colleague, Pat the Cope Gallagher, the then Fianna Fáil spokesperson on the marine and fisheries, moved an annulment of the statutory instrument from 2018 and for the first time in the history of the State, a statutory instrument was annulled. That is how strongly Pat the Cope Gallagher, former Leas-Cheann Comhairle of this House, felt about the issue.
Not only did he oppose the statutory instrument, he made it clear that fishermen supported the principle of penalty points but it had to be fair and balanced. He put forward a number of proposals at that time as a solution. If one looks at the amendments from the Sinn Féin and Rural Independent Group Deputies, they reflect what the Fianna Fáil fisheries spokesperson at that time believed in.
I will not read back to the Minister what he said in the Dáil but he was seriously concerned about the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and he felt there was a culture in that Department at that time which led to a mishandling of this whole affair. It should be remembered that fishermen had already won a number of court cases against previous Government decisions which found their rights were being infringed upon and this was not balanced and yet, the Minister has brought this legislation back pretty much verbatim.
The Minister has travelled around the coast. He has met fishermen online and in person all around the coast. He knows their views towards the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, which, unfortunately, has been a dysfunctional organisation and is now undertaking reform at last. However, the Minister knows there are protests within the organisation. It is dysfunctional and has not served its purpose properly around the State.
This dysfunctionality led to the withdrawal of our control plan, which was a disaster. That has recently been reversed, thanks to the huge effort of the fishermen in resisting this and standing up for their rights. The SFPA allowed a message to go out there that we were overfishing and involved in widespread illegality to the tune of tens of thousands of tonnes and hundreds of millions of euro. This was widely reported in the media because it was leaked. We do not know who did so, but somebody in either the SFPA or the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine leaked information to media in Ireland that was hugely damaging to and deeply untrue about the industry. What happened next? On the back of all of that, the European Commission withdrew the control plan. That is the level of crisis that has created the lack of distrust between our fishermen and those who are supposed to work with them. People understand regulation is needed in this country. There needs to be oversight. We all accept that. Fishing has to be sustainable and one has to stick to whatever the science says. It would be reckless not to do so. To be clear, everybody agrees on that.
However, the reason we in Sinn Féin tabled these amendments, along with our colleagues in the Rural Independent Group, is that it is outrageous to set a threshold of conviction where somebody's livelihood can be taken away, which is the balance of probabilities in this legislation. It is on the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt, which is the universally accepted threshold for conviction.
We have repeatedly appealed to the Minister to remove the balance of probabilities and make it beyond reasonable doubt. It is an entirely reasonable appeal. It would have been a gesture of goodwill from the Minister to those fisheries communities, whose trust in the likes of the SFPA and indeed the Department is on the floor and it gives me no pleasure to say that.
We have to rebuild those relationships. I appeal to the Department and the marine officials who will either tune into this debate tonight or read the transcript to start to rebuild those relationships. When the Minister was on this side of the House he said exactly the same. I will read back his script later if necessary. He said he was really concerned about the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and its relationship with fishing communities. My concern in the few years since he said those words remains exactly the same. We need to rebuild trust and the relationship between the Department, the SFPA and fishing communities. Getting this legislation wrong is not the way to do that.
At that time, I spoke to the then Deputy, Pat The Cope Gallagher, who was the Leas-Cheann Comhairle at the time, the Fianna Fáil fishery spokesperson previous to that and a very fine Member of the Oireachtas for many years. I read his proposal to strengthen the legislation. He would feel just as strongly as we do now. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Minister has not changed the language in this law to "beyond a reasonable doubt". Every single person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the threshold, yet the legislation refers to the balance of probability. The Minister knows that is wrong and the then Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher knew it was wrong when he had this statutory instrument annulled.
I appeal to the Minister tonight to get rid of this offensive language and lower threshold because every citizen has a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is natural justice but that is not what is in this legislation. What that tells me is that the people in the Department who drafted this legislation and write the Minister's briefing notes still do not get the anger and blind fury. Anybody in a coastal community knows there is blind anger and fury in fishing communities about they way they are being treated and the facts that they are not listened to and had to sign up to the seafood task force report on the basis that that is just how it is and there are not enough fish out there. I will speak about all of that later. The Minister hails from a coastal community and knows this legislation is wrong.
Many of the fundamental flaws identified by the fishing sector in the pre-legislative scrutiny remain. Today’s amendments highlight the lack of due process and natural justice in this regulatory system and the Government's bizarre commitment to an impaired approach, which must be called out.
Penalty points can be issued on a balance of probability rather than on the principle of beyond a reasonable doubt, as Deputies have said. The Government is enacting an ambiguous and worrying threshold that has no place in any State regulatory process. This will lead to confusion, conflict and, potentially, litigation.
Unbelievably, the Government is standing over the section which provide that even if an individual is found innocent of the alleged breaches in court, the penalty points applied under this legislation would not be deleted. That is simply wrong. Unfortunately, this represents a larger issue within the Department. The Government follows the Department's lead in how it interacts with coastal and island communities. The fisheries penalty points system was brought in suddenly, not by the Minister but by the Taoiseach when he was the acting Minister for the marine, without proper consultation with the sector. Not only is that poor policymaking, it is deeply disrespectful to fisher and coastal communities. Now, instead of welcoming a system that reprimands bad practice and acknowledges the good work of most of the sector, we have this mess. The coastal and island communities deserve better than this.
I will go back to where we were a while ago in this debate. If a Government ever wanted to pull out the foundations of the support that it might or might not have, it would attack the farmers and fishermen and succeed in turning all of them against it. Let us consider what the Government is doing with this wording. The wording means that someone will be presumed guilty rather than innocent. Surely that goes against every right-thinking person in this country. Our fishing people have enough obstacles against them as they try to make a living in difficult circumstances, which is all they are trying to do. Financially, it is difficult because the costs involved are enormous. Given the price of diesel and machinery, fishing people are really up against it. Then there are quotas, trying to compete on the seas and make a catch to earn a profit in order to keep going. Boats are regularly being tied up in bad weather and there are many other obstacles, while trying to keep on the right side of the law.
Then the Government that is elected to represent fishers comes along with wording such as this and refuses to accept genuine amendments from genuine people who know the truth. The killer issue about all of this is that the Minister does not agree with it himself. In his heart and soul, he would like to be over here saying what we are saying because he knows we are right. However, as the Minister he must toe the party and Government line. It is like being inside in bed with the Green Party. My good God, I would rather be anywhere else in the western world or the uncivilised world than be inside in bed with the Greens. The Minister is selling everything he fundamentally stood for himself. I do not mean to personalise this issue and I am sorry if I am doing that. I know the Minister is a decent politician and a hard-working man. At the same time, if he is going to stand up here and say we are all wrong and he is right, then I am sorry but he is wrong and he is in bed with the wrong crowd.
The Minister should be standing up for the fishers. He wanted to go out and meet them to tell them he was on their side. He should show them that he is on their side tonight. Fair play means you are presumed innocent until found guilty. The inclusion of the word "probability" is wrong and alien.
I am mindful that we should all help the Ceann Comhairle tonight so I will not use my full time.
I, too, add my voice to the call that the wording used should be "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than "on the balance of probability". This is a new departure from fair play. Any criminal brought before any court enjoys the presumption of innocence until found guilty. What is suggested in the wording is wrong. It may seem small to argue about the wording but it is important to people whose heads are down at this time.
This legislation does not solely affect fishers and all the grand people who came up the River Liffey to the convention centre last year. They gave a clear and precise presentation and no one repeated what anyone else said. It was a wonderful presentation and a joy to listen to. These are grand people who are trying to make a living. Look at what that exercise cost. These people would not do that only their backs are to the wall. They tell us they are only allowed to fish 16% of Irish waters. All the Government seems to do is offer them some compensation to get out of fishing. God almighty, there are traditions in those places where people were brought up to fish. If we went back to the 1600s, it was the English who taught us in the first place how to fish and now our own Government is telling fishers not to fish. We now have penalty points and the weighing of fish on the pier.
It would be fair if foreign fishermen had to weigh on the pier too but why is it just the poor Irish fishermen? When we are hurting the fishermen we are also hurting their communities because it is all trí na chéile. If they make a pound, they spend it in the butcher's shop, the grocery shop, the clothes shop and so on. Rather than penalising them and victimising them, we should be joining together here to see how we can help them. That is what we should be doing rather than discussing the question of the balance of probability.
For God's sake, the Minister must look again at what he is doing and accept our amendment. He should at least agree to insert the words "beyond a reasonable doubt". I appeal to the Minister to see sense. We all saw what the former Leas-Cheann Comhairle did. He got out of his seat, went up to the back and annulled the statutory instrument but here we have it being introduced again, obliterating what the former Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher did. Fianna Fáil Deputies all voted for that, as did we. We all supported Pat the Cope Gallagher. He is from Donegal and knows the trouble that the fishermen are in. Likewise, we are close to the fishing people in Cahersiveen, Dingle, all along Kenmare Bay and in Castletownbere and we know they are hurting. They are looking at us in here tonight, asking the Minister and his Government to just change four words. I appeal to the Minister to do that.
I wish to speak on amendment No. 4. This amendment is at the very core of the problematic flaws that exist within this Bill. The issue here is the balance of probabilities set against beyond a reasonable doubt. The thrust of any Bill should be based on a just and fair outcome. One of the problems with this Bill is on page 12, line 17 and we are proposing to delete "on the balance of probabilities" and substitute it with "beyond a reasonable doubt". The balance of probabilities does not have a precise meaning or a set, definitive standard whereas beyond reasonable doubt is a clear and concise instruction that places a far greater burden on the decision makers to thoroughly examine, and be far more accurate in, their assertions. This is a far higher standard than more probable than not. Aside from this, it reduces bias and adverse stereotyping which is often at play when it comes to our fishers.
I appeal to the Minister to carefully consider the amendment and accept the universal concept that beyond reasonable doubt far outweighs the balance of probabilities. Should the amendment be accepted, it will deliver a fairer and more equitable result to our fishers who deserve the utmost respect. I commend all of the fishers, especially those in County Wexford, on their magnanimous stand last week to protect the environment by shifting the Russian fleet outside our economic zone. They deserve justice and a fair hearing which is not contained in this Bill.
The Minister knows the position of Sinn Féin and the Independent Deputies to my left on this Bill. We are not opposed to penalty points and neither is the fishing industry. We have stated that repeatedly but the system must be fair. This scheme is not fair and we have made that point previously. We have introduced this amendment because allowing the future livelihoods of fishermen to depend on the loose "balance of probabilities" is wrong. This would raise serious questions in any other area of a person's work life and why it should be different for the fishing industry is a mystery to us all.
Has the Minister met any fishing representatives who believe they are being treated fairly in this Bill? We certainly have not met any. We have sought to address the unfairness by replacing the words "on the balance of probabilities" with "beyond a reasonable doubt" but have encountered nothing but resistance from the Minister. In terms of the purpose of this group of amendments, penalty points and serious infringements must be determined on the basis of beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the very basis of any law. Fishermen are entitled to that, at the very least. It is outrageous that the fishing industry is being treated in this way. I ask the Minister to consider accepting these amendments.
I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to support the amendment. Reference has been made to the former Deputy and former Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Pat the Cope Gallagher, who holds the respect of every single person in this House, both past and present. He spoke with passion in respect of SI 89 of 2019. He argued that natural justice must be allowed to occur and that common law rights should be upheld. What is at issue in this group of amendments is the very principle espoused by former Deputy Gallagher, who represented a coastal community, who was very close to the fishing sector for so many years and who knew it intimately. He served as a guide to many of us who were not so well versed in matters relating to the sector.
We are supporting these amendments, quite frankly, because we believe that the long-established principle in common law of beyond reasonable doubt should be inculcated into this legislation. It is as simple as that. Other speakers before me and the proposers of the amendment have articulated that viewpoint very well.
We are debating this legislation in the context of the recent prospect of Russian naval exercises taking place within our exclusive economic zone. The prospect of those exercises highlighted and exposed the weaknesses in our Defence Forces in terms of fisheries patrols and the weaknesses inherent in our own fisheries sector. The idea that there would be, just yesterday, a European Fisheries Control Agency, EFCA, vessel docked in Cobh is anathema to those of us who have great respect for our Defence Forces and specifically for our navy. We now know that the capacity of the navy to patrol our own waters is just not there. The timing of this legislation is all wrong. When I think of the diplomatic win, a win that was not garnered by the Government or any Department of State but by fishers who took on the might of an empire, I am reminded of the Skibbereen Eagle taking on the might of the Tsar of Russia. There was a certain symbolism in that, in the way that people like Patrick Murphy and Brendan Byrne took on the might of the Russian navy. It made me proud to be Irish, that these humble people were defending not only the rights of fishers but also defending the environment and the sustainability of the sector that they represent.
They were representing families and individuals who seek to ply their trade, make that catch and make the few shillings to keep life and soul together. It was a fantastic example of David and Goliath. The Minister is proposing legislation that seeks to further trammel the rights of those very same people.
If I was advising the Minister, with the Minister himself having taken such a strident view on this very legislation when he was in opposition, I would ask him to roll back a little on it, to take further counsel and not to go down this route in regard to the legislation. This is precisely because, as was articulated in pre-legislative scrutiny, the issue of reasonable doubt, which is a concept that prevails in the common law system, is not present here. While supporting these amendments, I fear we are going to criminalise further ordinary men and women. It is the State leaning too heavily on ordinary men and women. The Minister needs to revise his position on this.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the amendments. I fully support the three amendments in this grouping, which do exactly what the Members who proposed them have said. It is acting reasonably. The least that fishermen should expect from the State is to change this and to work within “a reasonable doubt” rather than “the balance of probabilities”, as it currently stands. It is not beyond the realm of possibility for the Department to establish a body that would meet and discuss this. The method of allocating the points could be done “beyond a reasonable doubt” just as well, which is an important point.
Much reference has been made to the debates we had in the last Dáil, where this process was rejected by the whole Dáil and in particular by the Fianna Fáil party. I am reminded of a book that I read as a young fellow, That Was Then, This Is Now. That is really what the difference is. Fianna Fáil was on this side of the House when it was put forward, and now it is on the other side of the House and it has to do the exact opposite. That is a telling point in regard to this whole situation. It seems that despite everything people do in opposition, they can forget about it when they go into government because government is different; that is the way it is and we are all supposed to accept that. I do not believe that is the way it should be or can be. It requires the political system to have the strength to stand up and be counted, but I do not feel that is happening here.
In response to these amendments, the Minister will probably say they have met all the requirements and, therefore, it is not the same as what was proposed previously. In reality, it is, and that is how it is going to work out. I want to offer my full support on these amendments, which are vital. Even at this late stage, the Department could withdraw this, come back and provide for “beyond a reasonable doubt” to be included as it will achieve the same thing. That is what is important overall.
I thank all of the Deputies for their contributions to the legislation and on this initial amendment. Given we had dealt with this on Committee Stage previously, I do not propose to accept the amendment. I have given in great detail my rationale and logic as to why that is the case. It has been subject to very significant interrogation and assessment going back to when it was in the Dáil previously and when the previous statutory instrument was annulled. At that stage, a number of amendments were put forward by my party and they were comprehensively assessed afterwards. A comprehensive process has been gone through in terms of looking at each of those amendments and assessing whether they stack up to scrutiny in regard to actually being able to introduce a statutory instrument which will bring us into compliance with our obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy. Some of those amendments were assessed and incorporated into the new statutory instrument. Others were assessed and not incorporated because to incorporate them would have seen the statutory instrument not fulfil its duty in regard to bringing us into compliance under the Common Fisheries Policy.
As it stands, we are the last member state that has ocean and catches fish to actually come into compliance and introduce the penalty points system - the last. We often hear it said that we are the best boys in the class and we are dancing a jig to this and dancing a jig to that. That is not the reality. The reality is that we are the very last, so much so that the EU has taken enforcement proceedings against us, it has taken a reasoned opinion against us at European level and it has actually stopped our funding. That is where we are coming from. We have to introduce a statutory instrument that meets the criteria. If we do not, we will be introducing a statutory instrument that would not fulfil that and we still would not be compliant.
All of the amendments that have been suggested have been fully assessed and fully teased out. I have had numerous engagements on this issue with fishermen, fisherwomen and fisher representatives, both in terms of their leaders nationally and at each pier side right across the country. It has been well thrashed out, as it has been comprehensively thrashed out with the Members present over the last period of time.
As Deputy Michael Collins said, the key point is in regard to “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which he wants to be the threshold. Again, this is an administrative system. In an administrative structure, “on the balance of probabilities” is the standard threshold. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is what is used in criminal proceedings and “on the balance of probabilities” is what is used in administrative structures. It is a requirement on us to introduce it in a penalty points system. This is not a criminal conviction. If somebody gets penalty points, it is an administrative system similar to the road traffic system, where if somebody gets penalty points on their driving licence, it is not a criminal conviction. If it is a very serious misdemeanour, criminal proceedings can proceed in parallel to that, which would then go through the courts. However, the penalty points system is not criminal; it is administrative, which is a key point. That is the reason that threshold is being used.
Deputy Mac Lochlainn spoke about the culture in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the culture in the SFPA, and he had a real go and personalised it in terms of Department officials. He then tried to tie that around to it actually being me who was saying that, and that somehow what he is saying equates with what I would say. I am happy for the Deputy to read back on anything I said in the debate on the initial statutory instrument - by all means, please do. I can assure him that if he does, he will see that, as with everything I ever say, it is measured and considered, and I always hold people to account. It is not personalised. As has become Deputy Mac Lochlainn’s form in all of these debates at committee level or in the Dáil, very much contrary to other contributions that we have heard in the Dáil tonight, he tends to personalise it to officials and have a go at them, rather than dealing with the facts. That should be beneath Deputy Mac Lochlainn. It is not the way to approach this. We need to deal with the facts, assess it, deal with the logic, deal with the reason, but not have a go and personalise it. If the Deputy looks at leaders in the fishing sector, he will not find them using the language he uses or having a go personally. If he looks at his colleagues in the Dáil tonight, he will not find them having a go personally, but it his standard approach. It should not be the way he goes about it and it is not the way to do business.
He should not be saying that what I am bringing forward is because a briefing note has been put in front of me. He should know me well enough at this stage to know I look at things and assess them in great detail. I bring them forward because I stand over them. That is the way it should be; it is the way it should be for any Minister who comes into the Dáil. That is the way Deputy Mac Lochlainn should accept it to be as well, and not try to bypass that and have a go at officials personally. Again, I do not believe that is the way to do business.
Deputy Cairns asked whether penalty points will still apply if a person is found innocent in court. As I said, penalty points are an administrative approach. If it is a very serious offence, it can lead to a separate criminal line as well, but that is very much separate.
Deputy Michael Healy-Rae said that one would be presumed guilty rather than innocent. I do not agree with that. That is not the case. The starting point here is not that anyone is presumed guilty. The starting point is that, if something is brought, people have a chance to defend themselves. It is only if it crosses the threshold of the balance of probabilities that penalty points would apply. If it is a court case, then the threshold that is used is whether it is beyond reasonable doubt.
Deputy Danny Healy-Rae said that we are telling people not to fish. That is not what we are doing. We want to maximise the fishing resources that we have in our seas and oceans. We want to empower fishermen to fish as they can and we want to ensure that it is done in a way that ensures that fish are there for many years to come, by fishing at a sustainable level. I have worked at European level at all times to try to maximise the quotas that we get and to fight every battle in that vein.
I thank Deputy Mythen for his contribution. Deputy Pringle made the point about then and now. I have outlined the significant process of assessing all of the proposed amendments, detail, and consultation. That is how we have got to where we are. We are the last member state to bring in this process. There has been great attention to detail.
The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, invited me to read into the record some parts of a speech that he delivered, so I will read it into the record now. In the annulment motion tabled by his colleague, former Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher, he stated:
We need to take on board the needs of the fishing sector. We need to avoid the possibility of it being struck down in the courts again. The Department's track record in introducing a penalty-points regime has been poor. Given that on two occasions attempted statutory instruments were struck down following appeals to the Supreme Court reflects very poorly on the management of the issue heretofore.
The Minister dares to lecture me when those were his words at that time. I will continue. The Minister stated:
The key points that remain to be addressed relate to the burden of proof. The current approach in the statutory instrument deals with the balance of probability rather than having to prove beyond doubt, which is normally the case where a criminal sanction is being pursued. The role of the SFPA permeates the statutory instrument at all stages, which was the basis on which the Supreme Court struck down the previous statutory instruments.
The Minister was against everything that he is now defending. He was on the same side as us when he spoke the last time and he was heavily critical of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the SFPA in his commentary, but the Minister tells me that I am personalising it.
I did not personalise it.
Who did I name? The Minister accused me of personalising it. Who did I name?
The Deputy is attacking the fishing-----
Tell me who I named. The Minister said that I personalise the issue. Who did I name? Did I name any official in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine or the SFPA? I did now what the Minister did back then. I believe that the Minister knows in his heart, as Deputy Danny Healy-Rae said, that this is wrong. It is my job as a spokesperson on fisheries and the marine to read The Fishing Daily, the Marine Times and The Skipper. Those are the voices of fishermen. Is the Minister seriously telling me that he has not heard criticism of the Department or the SFPA in those newspapers and magazines that come out once a month? Did the Minister hear the speeches that were delivered outside the Dáil and the fishers' voices?
The Deputy's time is up.
I will not take accusations from the Minister and I refute what he said. If the Minister goes ahead with this tonight, he will demonstrate that he is not listening to the fishing community and that he is out of touch with them.
I have two minutes to speak on this issue. I could spend an hour speaking on it. This Bill aims to criminalise the entire fisheries sector and creates an unequal and deeply unfair legal system for fishermen and women. Therefore, it is important for the Minister to support us on this amendment. He said that we are the last to bring in the penalty points system. We are the last when it comes to fishing in all negotiations. It was proven at Brexit, when we got the most shocking deal of all time. We have been the last at every negotiation about fishing. We come out the worst. Maybe it is time for the Minister to stand up to his European counterparts and tell them that, a few years ago, he was on the other side of the fence. Maybe if there was a general election and the Government was toppled, the Minister might be on this side of the fence again, back with us, and supporting this amendment. This is the direction that the Minister was heading at that time but obviously a bit of power changes everything and the fishermen are sacrificed.
The Minister said he had discussions with numerous fishing organisations. Can he name one that supports this measure? They are the people who know the effect that this will have on the people on the ground. They are the people who we should listen to and who I am taking my advice from. It is astonishing to think that a very reasonable amendment is not being accepted here. We are the very last to get this sorted. The only thing that we will succeed in doing for our fishermen this year is decommissioning. That is the best deal that they will get this year. Is it not sad to think that we will wipe out a fleet of fishing boats from our waters and that decommissioning is the only flag that we have, to get rid of the fishermen? Deputy Danny Healy-Rae was right when he said that fishermen are being got rid of. There is no point in denying that because they know it.
In response to the Minister, I appreciate the point that this is an administrative scheme and that the concept of the balance of probabilities is applied. I remain open to the expertise of the Minister's own officials, given that they have spent much time going to and from Brussels over the years. Was due cognisance taken of the fact that we are in a common law system? Whether or not there is a criminal sanction for the application of a penalty points system, fishers feel put upon, whether through decommissioning schemes or the outworkings of negotiations at intergovernmental level in respect of Britain's exit from the European Union. There is frustration on the part of fishers that they are getting a smaller and smaller part of the pot with every successive negotiation. Does the Minister acknowledge the frustration of the Opposition as it seeks to introduce amendments of this nature? It is trying to ensure that if a penalty points system is introduced, it does not further impose upon the fishers and they are not put upon. Can the Minister understand where fishers are coming from? They feel as if there is a slow and gradual erosion of their livelihoods.
I thank the Deputy.
I do not want to be too rhetorical about it. In the language of law, this is an administrative scheme, with a penalty points system, but fishermen perceive it-----
I thank the Deputy.
-----and want their feelings to be acknowledged that they perceive it as being yet another heavy-handed State intervention.
When I heard Deputy Mac Lochlainn reading out what the Minister said when he was over here in opposition, I could not understand how the Minister is over there in government at all, contesting one little line that we want to change. The purpose of us asking to use the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" is to provide fairness and equality for fishermen and women under the law and the Constitution, otherwise the Government will create a new and dangerous precedent of treating fishers as second-class citizens under the law.
This would give power to a fisheries officer or office to make a judgment on the balance of probability, in other words, a 50 million to one probability that a potential infringement action had occurred. This is of key concern for fishermen and women. If this amendment is accepted then the legislation would be, at the very least, a little bit fairer.
It is very hard to understand the resistance of the Minister, the Department and the Government. It shows a total lack of willingness to work with the fishing people and their communities and a total disregard for them. It is upsetting to hear the record back and to hear the way a person can change his views, opinions and outlook on a subject just because he moves from this side of the Chamber to that side. It is very worrying and if that is the cost of power and of being in office, then it is a very heavy weight. It is a tough anchor to have hanging off a person if that is the cost of the anchor. It will not be forgotten when people disregard those they are supposed to represent. It does not make sense and it is not right.
We have to remember that this is predominantly an agricultural country. We appreciate tourism and everything else but the fundamental things that we had when we had nothing else were farming, fishing and people just working, trying to make work for themselves. Our job as legislators, in every way and in every fashion, is to help those people, to assist them and make life easier for them. If the Minister could stand up and put me in my box tonight and tell me how he is making life easier for fishermen, I would gladly bow to his experience, to his position as a Minister and would say that he is right and I am wrong but I am sorry, I cannot understand it. It does not make sense to me. When things do not make sense to me, I tell it out straight, as it is. The Minister should stand up for the fishermen and tell us that he will accept this amendment because it is a very small and humble request that we are making.
As per what Deputy Mac Lochlainn read out, I have always been measured and anchored in logic in any arguments I have made. The Deputy tried earlier, in his first contribution, to equate what he was saying with what I had said previously. As is clear from what he read out from my contribution that night, I said that the Department's track record in bringing forward a statutory instrument was not a good one, given that it had already been knocked down in the Supreme Court twice. I think that was fair comment. It had been knocked down in the Supreme Court twice. I also said that there should not be such an adversarial approach and since becoming Minister, that is something I have worked very hard to try to change. I have visited every pier and every harbour in the country. I have worked with and met fishermen at every opportunity. I have worked very closely to support them in every way I possibly can. I fought hard on their behalf on Brexit, which we all know was a very challenging situation. After that, I brought the fishermen and fisherwomen together in a task force and tasked them with setting out a pathway to maximise our natural resource and to make their livelihoods as strong, viable and sustainable as possible into the future. Now I am stepping forward to implement the plan they put forward. That is my track record since I became Minister.
Regarding the statutory instrument, it was knocked down twice by the Supreme Court, which is not a good track record, as I have said. I have worked very closely with the Department in terms of stepping that out, having the amendments proposed at the time assessed, accommodating those that could be included but moving forward and not including those that could not be included. Now I am successfully bringing forward legislation to put in masters legislation but doing it in a way that makes us compliant, as is our obligation, while taking on board all of the views expressed. Not all views can be accommodated because ultimately, if some of the suggestions the Deputies are putting forward were accommodated, we still would not be compliant because we would not meet our obligations.
That is the approach that I have taken. I have been measured and have worked to support fishers in what has been a very challenging time.
How stands the amendment?
I am pressing the amendment.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 75; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Berry, Cathal.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Canney, Seán.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Shanahan, Matt.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
Níl
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Hourigan, Neasa.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
- Varadkar, Leo.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Michael Collins; Níl, Deputies Jack Chambers and Brendan Griffin.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 12, line 4, to delete “30 working days” and substitute “60 working days”.
This is a fair amendment. You must look at the type of work a fisher does. If something as huge as penalty points is hoisted upon his or her back then he or she will need time. They will need time to challenge what is probably an unfair conviction being put on them. It is now left to a fisherman to fight an uphill battle, especially as the Minister did not accept the previous amendment. This amendment will increase the period of time to 60 days to allow a submission in writing to be made to the panel, from the date of notification from the SFPA. That is not an unreasonable ask. It is just 30 days more than the Minister is giving in the first place. These fishermen are out on the water. Many of them are working very hard. They have not the time to come in and fight a case. Fighting a case is a new penalty foisted upon them. Anybody who knows anything about court processes knows the person must be there themselves and must prepare his or her case. A case as big as this is an extremely serious situation for a fisherman. We saw last week the situation with the Russians and whatever. The livelihoods of the fishermen are seriously at risk. They have been for quite some time because both this Government and the previous one have taken their eye completely off the ball in relation to protecting the income of fishermen. Thus, they are forced out on the water at any time they have an opportunity to catch the little bit allowed by their quota. They might well have to go out for 30 consecutive days. Then they will not have a chance to come back in and fight a case, which could be a very unfair case. It looks like they are guilty if they are caught. They are guilty if they are not guilty and they are guilty if they are guilty, so they have not a hope of winning. At the same time, they are entitled to get some little bit of a chance.
I mentioned the situation with the Russians. When nobody helped them last week Irish fishermen went out there. They came up here. They came in off the water, went to the Russian embassy and spoke to the ambassador there. They were able to turn it around when the Minister, or the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Taoiseach could not. The Taoiseach was taking the praise for it a little this week all right but it is a little too late because the whole country was falling around laughing at the way the Government failed the Irish fishermen. However, that is just a continuation of failures by successive Ministers and Governments to protect the Irish fishermen. They threw them out. They threw them out into the water. In this situation they took the law into their own hands. The sad thing is now they tell me the biggest mistake made was them not being allowed negotiate out in Europe during the Brexit negotiations because they would have come home with a result. We came home with a zero result. It is a sad reflection of what is going on there that the fishermen themselves have to fight every inch of the way to succeed. That is the sad situation they find themselves in.
I speak to them daily and they are under severe pressure. If the Minister continues with the 30 working days he is going to put more pressure on them instead of working with and co-operating with them. I cannot for the life of me understand why there is such a misunderstanding or dislike in the Department's thinking over the last 20 years to make it so anti-fishing. Maybe people say it has been over the past 30 years. Fishing is one of the greatest industries we could have in this country. It could be something we could stand up and be proud of, the same as we were so proud of our agriculture. The sad thing is the Government will wipe that out too if it keeps going the way it is.
This is a simple request. The Minister should substitute the 30 working days with 60 and give the fisherman every chance he has to come home and fight his case. It may be an unfair case he must fight in the first place but I cannot stop that process, by the look of it, given the way the Minister is going. In fairness, I wish the Minister was back on this side of the House like he was before. If he were we would have a different story tonight from him. We do not have that, however. We have a situation where the fishermen are going to be sold out one way or the other if the Government can have its way. They have had a disastrous 12 months going from one crisis to another. There was the weighing crisis, Brexit, penalty points and decommissioning. Lord God, one thing is just being piled on top of the other. Is there any good news here? Is the Minister going to get up tonight and say this penalty points system is going to go ahead? Are Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - we can forget about the Greens as they will always do these things anyhow - going to railroad this through one way or the other? Is there any hope the Minister will stand up tonight and say he has secured quota for the fishermen so we can turn things around a small bit and make them think they may survive in what is a crisis situation they face at this time? I ask that the Minister at least change his mind on the 30 working days and at least show some bit of respect. This amendment is about giving them respect and a stronger chance to defend themselves when they are probably in the right and deserve the right to defend themselves. They cannot do that in the 30-day period. That is what they have told me and I am relaying the message to the Minister on behalf of the fishermen of this country. Please stand up for them. Fianna Fáil stood up for them at one time. Now it is turning its back on them because they are being sacrificed for some other sweet deal somewhere else along the line. That is what has been going on here for years. Let none of us be fooled here in any way.
I must touch on the SFPA while I am here. There is a shocking relationship between the fishermen and the SFPA. It should never be like that. It should be a working relationship. That is something the Minister will have to work hard on going forward.
Is the SFPA now going to be whipping boys with penalty points? They have been whipping boys against the ordinary fishermen for the past 30 years aided and abetted by successive governments. It is now time to change, to turn out and fight for those fishermen and their rights, whether it is in this country or in Europe. The Minister is at the helm to do that but he has failed to do it so far.
I will speak to the amendment that relates to the increase from 30 working days to 60 working days. I think that is reasonable. It moves the requirement from one calendar month to two calendar months. I was interested in the discussion of working days because in the fishing industry every day is a working day. I presume the amendment relates to continuous days. It is reasonable because the nature of the fishing industry is such that someone could be on a ten- or 14-day trip or something like that. People who are notified of these penalties on a fishing trip will not be able to prepare a defence or arguments in respect of that.
In addition, while people are waiting for a case to be heard, they will continue to try to make a living. They will be at sea for periods between that time so in order to allow people time to actually put up the best defence they can, it is reasonable to extend the time. It is not an unreasonable time in terms of how the system that will be delivered will work. To have an actual two-month period is not unreasonable. I ask the Minister to take that on board and to accept this amendment because I believe it is worthwhile.
Justice rushed is justice denied. That is the main thrust of doubling the working days allowable to permit people a proper chance to organise, to put together and to fight their case, if they have the prospect of penalty points being imposed against them.
There is no other sector of society, except farmers, whose members are targeted as much for going about their daily work. Can you imagine a person working in a factory, building site or any other place of work, where people are down on him or her as much as they are on fishermen and farmers? There is another group, that of lorry drivers and the Road Safety Authority, another agency that is also tormenting people. Certain categories of hard-working people in Ireland today are treated like criminals before they do anything. You have to shake your head and ask why. A typical example tonight is why the Minister would resist this amendment. Why does he not see the common sense in saying yes to an extra 30 days being added on to allow people proper time to put together their defence?
It is a fact that when people go out to fish they can be gone for a period if the weather is good and, if they are catching and things are going their way, they will not come in. If they have to prepare a case to defend themselves while there is the prospect of continuing to make their living if they are getting on well when they are outside, how in the name of God can they come in to fight a case like that? Of course, that is what the Government wants to do. It wants to take them off the water because it does not want them fishing in the first place or it would not be doing half of what it is doing against them. It just does not make sense.
It again comes back to what farmers and fishermen have done to this Government that it will try to impede, upset, torment and agitate them and come down on them every way it can. It is a wonderment to me and to them. We are all completely at a loss and completely confused to know what set the Government has got against them. Is it because of the beautiful Green Party I talked about earlier? Members of the Government will be remembered forever for firmly being in bed with the Green Party and for selling its soul for power by doing so. It will never be allowed to forget it. It will be remembered forever for all the horrible things it is doing, including all the impositions of additional carbon taxes and all the taxes it is imposing on the people of Ireland every day.
The wrath of God will come down on the Government. When voters cast their votes and members of the Government wonder what happened, they should remember nights like tonight. They will say that maybe if they had listened to Sinn Féin, the Rural Independent Group and other people who said to listen to common sense, they would not find themselves in the position in which I am sure they will find themselves. Not one of us knows where anybody will be, but I know one thing. I know where the voters will be and they are not going to be on the Government's side. The day it attacks the working people and the day it will not help the people who are trying to make a living, my God, is the most fundamental thing in the whole world.
In Ireland, we have a coast all around us. God knows the livelihoods of fishers have been eroded by the bad deals that have been done in Europe, by the way they have been continuously shafted and sold down the river and by all the times they have been neglected and let down by this and successive governments in the past. It is a miracle they are in existence at all. We are trying to encourage young people. I have spoken to fishermen who desperately want to see members of their families and the younger generation continuing in the business. They are very despondent. Anybody looking in tonight, and listening to the contributions and what was said earlier about the Government resisting the ordinary amendments we are trying to put forward to try to make it more acceptable for fishing people to make their living, will see that all our amendments are being rubbished. Why - because they are coming from us? They are coming from us because the Green Party will not allow them. It is just a horrible situation.
People are listening tonight. Please do not think we are in the Chamber on our own. Farmers are watching and listening, as are their representative groups. Fishermen and their representative groups are watching, listening and looking at the way people are voting. If anybody thinks when they are blindly rowing in behind the Government tonight that nobody is watching and taking notice, and nobody will remember, I can tell them they will remember. They will remember who did what, what they were doing and from where they were doing it. People will know how Members voted on these amendments; you can be sure of that. If the press do not report it, the groups that are representing the farmers and the fishers will know it and they will remember it. It is an awful thing to do.
Again, I am amazed that an amendment that just gives people additional time to prepare and to stand up for themselves against the wrath of the Government if they are being taken to court for an alleged offence is being opposed. Fishermen commit an offence when they pull up their trousers in the morning as far as the Government is concerned because it believes fishers should not be fishing in the first instance. That is a fact. You can laugh all you like but I can tell you one thing; there is no fisherman, fisherwoman or fishing family laughing at that statement because they feel like they are criminals. It is the exact same as a lorry driver who gets into his or her lorry in the morning. They also feel like criminals because they are being targeted. Working people are being targeted by this Government and the agencies of the State that are supposed to represent the people but are instead representing something else.
What we are asking for is very minimal. These are hard-working people who pay their taxes. They are contributing to us in this Chamber and to services, whether those are carers, pensions or whatever. They are contributing like everyone else and they do not have surety of work. They are dependent on the weather as to whether they can go out to fish. We are asking the Minister to double the days to 60 because 30 days pass quickly. We are not long back after Christmas and the month of January is gone. The other problem the fishermen have is that when their quota is reached, at the end of the month or before it, they cannot go fishing for another few weeks.
They are out again when the time comes because they have to make money to make payments to keep their vessels. They will not get paid if they are at home. They might have already spent a number of days at home because they had filled their quotas or the weather was bad. They go back out on the high seas to try to make a few pounds and the 30 days are stripping days. Thirty days pass quickly. It is only a small request to increase those 30 working days to 60 working days.
Departmental officials certainly have a different idea of 30 working days. Sole traders who are operating on their own or as companies must pay their employees and they must work whatever days they can. That is often seven days a week and, many times, 24 hours a day. That has to be understood and I do not think it is being understood. I humbly ask the Minister for this. I ask him to tell me why he cannot make this adjustment if he will not do it. How would it hurt the process for it to carry on for another 30 days? I ask the Minister to explain that to me. All they are asking is for a period of 60 days to allow a submission in writing to be made to the determination panel from the date of the notification from the SFPA. We could not be more humble or ask for anything smaller than what we are asking for. We are asking the Minister to double the time limit. I do not think it would be the end of the world. I ask the Minister to explain how it would damage the SFPA's case if the time limit was increased to 60 days.
If this legislation is about an EU harmonisation of sanctions, is the 30 days the de facto position across all member states? Is each member state implementing a 30-day regime? If that is the case, so be it; there is consistency. However, we plead mitigation in these circumstances. Given the particular variations in an Irish scenario where fishermen are fishing quite far from their home base, as has been articulated by Deputy Pringle, there is scope to plead for some mitigation to allow for a greater number of days to be provided when preparing one's case, as it were. That is simply what the amendment seeks to do. Is the Government tied to the 30 days so as to be ad idem with the position of other member states or does the Government have scope in how it transposes the EU rules?
I referred earlier to The Fishing Daily, Marine Times and The Skipper. It is my job and that of the Minister to read those publications every time they come out to educate ourselves on the issues affecting fishing communities. If he had done that, he would not have made the assertion he made earlier that he has never heard of those publications criticising the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine or the SFPA. That was an astonishing statement. I can tell the Minister that, from talking to fishermen up and down the coast, there is, sadly, a wall of distrust that has been established over a long period of time. The Minister's job is to try to break down that. This legislation is a disaster for that challenge. It undermines trust even further. It says that fishers are second-class citizens. The threshold for conviction is the balance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt. Fishers are second-class citizens. The Minister can talk about administrative or criminal law. The livelihoods of those fishers can be taken away by this legislation. That is serious.
I watched a documentary a number of years ago called "The Atlantic". It was screened in the audiovisual room in Leinster House and everybody was invited. It was a tremendously powerful documentary. Something that stayed in my mind from that documentary was the fisherman Jerry Early in Arranmore. He had been dragged into the courts. That was the reality for him. He was back on the boat and trying to eke out a livelihood fishing off Arranmore. There is a scene in the documentary where he is sitting on the boat and the interviewer is talking to him. He talks about a city of lights behind him - the super trawlers. We were going after the inshore fishermen and the island fishermen, treating them like criminals, while a city of lights, a super trawler, was hoovering up the sea behind them. We were telling those fishermen not to catch the odd salmon or herring, or whatever it might be here or there, while a super trawler was coming out and legally hoovering up fish with no oversight, CCTV or observers on board. They were landing massive catches. That is the context and the profound injustice involved. We are going after our fishermen while we hand over more than 85% of the fish in our waters without a fight.
Bluefin tuna is the most lucrative fish in the sea. It is now in abundance in our waters thanks to good practices. The quota for the European fishing fleet increased by 78% in recent years. An additional quota was given to the fishing fleets of Europe. What did the Irish fishermen get of that? Not 1 kg. The Irish fishermen can catch bluefin tuna but they must release them again. They can catch them and look at them but they have to be thrown back into the water again. Fishermen from all other fleets in Europe can come into our waters and beyond. International fishermen can catch the most lucrative fish in the world. Imagine the difference bluefin tuna would make for our inshore fishermen, even if they were told to line catch them. There was no fight in that regard.
This is an environment in which there is growing anger. In 2005, we had 280 fishing vessels that were longer than 50 m. That is indisputable. When the latest decommissioning round is completed, we will be down to fewer than 100. Our fleet is one third of the size it was in 2005. Is it any wonder fishermen have lost faith in their own Department and the Government, and why they are infuriated by people harassing them, following them and chasing them? The Minister knows this. He has been around the piers and harbours. We forced our fishermen to take their fish out of iceboxes, weigh them and put them back into the boxes. The Minister knows that under the seafood regulations there is a crucial issue around the temperature of fish and the process of taking them from the sea, maintaining them at the right temperature and freshness, and selling them to market. That is an EU directive around seafood safety and yet all of that was undermined by another directive on the back of a poor job by the SFPA on auditing. All that was leaked.
The Minister accused me of personalising the issue and being nasty. I challenge him to disprove a single word I have said in my contribution.
Is it nasty to speak the truth? Is it unreasonable to tell the truth about what is happening to our fishing and coastal communities? I appeal to the Minister to listen to them. He is from a coastal community. He is not far from the sea in the middle of Inishowen. Nearby are Urris, Malin Head and Greencastle, with its good-sized harbour. There are decent piers in the area. The Minister knows these people. He knows who they are and that they are the salt of the earth. He knows how they feel. I am appealing to him for a change of direction. I am not questioning the Minister's character. We have known each other long enough. However, I cannot understand the direction he is taking here. I cannot understand how the senior officials in the Department, who have failed for so many years, have the Minister moving in a direction that is wrong. This legislation is wrong. This is not a personal attack on the Minister. I personally have good regard for him and we have known each other long enough. I genuinely and from my heart tell him that from speaking to fishermen around the coast, that is how they feel. Nothing I have said can be refuted. I ask the Minister to take it any way he wants but this is a genuine appeal to him, as an Inishowen man surrounded by water, to do what is right by the people we have known all our lives. That is all I am asking and nothing more.
There is not a big fishing industry in Limerick. However, there are industries that are supported by fisheries. My Rural Independent Group colleagues have major fisheries in their counties and I support them. I have listened to everyone who has contributed to the debate. The media are currently asking which Deputies have a second job. I have been self-employed all my life. I understand what the fishers are going through because they have been self-employed all their lives. Most of the Rural Independents have been self-employed all their lives. Why do the members of the Rural Independent Group make so much sense? It is because we understand business and hardship. Whether a part of an SME or in another job, 51% of the people in Ireland are self-employed. We give jobs to 51% of the people of Ireland.
Some of the contributions tonight said the Minister was on the side of the fishermen a number of years ago before he became a Minister. He had morals when he said for years that he was standing up for the fishermen and fisherwomen of this country. Has he sold them out for the position he holds?
Irish people are known for their culture. People in Europe recognise the Irish culture, including its farming culture and fishing culture. All our cultures are recognised. The only people who are selling out the Irish culture are the members of the Government. They are selling out our culture, industries and SMEs to Europe. The Minister was sent to Europe to fight for our country and the people of Ireland, no matter what industry they are in. All Ministers are there to fight for us. The Minister sold us out. He sold out 85% of the fisheries in Ireland. Does it not resonate with him, what he has done in the position he is in?
I do not say it light-heartedly but there is a fierce problem in our Government at the moment. We have too many career politicians. People in the Opposition, such as the Rural Independent Group, are bringing to the table the opinions of the grassroots membership of the parties that the Government members once stood up for. The second politicians get into a position, they let civil servants rule them. The Minister should be taking on his Department and telling his officials what to do. Those officials should not be telling him things he does not agree with. The Minister is left going around in circles saying he did not say this or that. Deputy Mac Lochlainn just read back to the Minister a statement he made in the past.
My job, as a Limerick Deputy, is to represent the people who put me in here, whether they are from the farming industry or wherever else. I represent people who are working and people who are not. I have to fight for the best deal for Limerick on behalf of the people who put me here. The Minister's job is to fight for the best deal for Ireland. He did not do that. He did not fight.
This amendment seeks to change 30 working days to 60 working days. I can understand that, as a businessperson, as can everyone else. Perhaps the Department and the civil servants cannot understand it because they have somebody running around doing things for them. We are talking about people who are working tooth and nail to provide not only for the fishing industry but also for the transport industry. The Government has done things to penalise them when it could have helped them. The Government could have helped with fuel costs but it penalised them again. The Government is making it impossible for any industry in Ireland to survive. All it is doing is creating inflation. We can see it in the ports. The Government is bringing in more legislation and stopping stuff coming into this country or leaving this country. There is an increase of €2.8 billion in transport going through the North because it is relaxed. We have to do it differently in Ireland. We are responsible for 0.01% of global emissions but we have the most stipulations of anywhere in Europe. They are placed on us by Ministers who are city-based and who are not businesspeople. They are being led by their Departments.
I call on the Minister to stand up and take on his Department. I ask him to stand up and fight for the people who elected him to represent them. I call on him to give them a small piece to say they will have an extra 30 days. They have to stay outside in the waters longer and catch less. They have to throw fish back. The biggest point I am going to make to the Minister is that those Irish fishers are pulling into ports and seeing other trawlers in the ports and unloading their fish onto trucks while the Irish fishers have to empty their boxes. Why are some of them getting penalty points? It is because fishers are weighing their fish in boxes with ice in it. They are told they are overweight and penalty points are applied. There is no chastising of foreign vessels that can come in and do what they want. Those foreign vessels can come into the same port as Irish fishers and unload as fast as they can before going out again to catch more fish. That is wrong. I call on the Minister to stand up for the people who elected him. He should stand up for every county of Ireland that depends on fisheries. He should stand up for transport, fisheries and everything. He should stand up and make an imprint on Irish politics. I call on him not to be a career politician for the position that he holds.
I thank the Deputy. In the course of his impassioned contribution, he made reference to the Minister's morals. I know he is a new Deputy so I did not want to interrupt him but I think we all have to accept that we can come in here, have a debate and vehemently disagree with each other and have radically different approaches to matters, but it is beyond the pale for us to start questioning other people's morals. Everybody is here, in my view, to do the very best they can and I think we should accept that.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his comments. This has been a bizarre debate. This is the second amendment. During the debate on the first amendment, pretty much all the Opposition speakers spent their time telling me that I changed my opinion when I moved from one side of the House to the other. They told me that now I am on the Government side of the House I am peddling a different set of policies. I clearly laid out that was not the case. I laid out the logic in what I am doing and what I have brought forward. I set that out clearly. We are now on amendment No. 2 and the Opposition Deputies are opposing something they proposed when a debate on these matters was held most recently. They are accusing me of not having come forward and put in place the amendments they supported when Fianna Fáil proposed them when we were on the Opposition benches. One of the amendments we sought to adopt was to increase the period to 30 days.
That was one of the things all of the Deputies supported the last time around. It is one of the things I supported. It is one of the things I put in place in the licenceholder's legislation and in this legislation, which is for what the Deputies all advocated. It was one of their key amendments. Now, they have spent the second amendment debate arguing against the very thing they were proposing then, even though it is already contained in this Bill. It is bizarre really from that point of view.
I will go back over some of the arguments and points that were made. Deputy Michael Collins first of all indicated that I was anti-fishing and that people were rolling around laughing at the negotiations for Brexit. Again, Deputy Collins has followed this debate. He should have seen my form and track record so far with regard to fisheries. I was in Rossaveal yesterday. I visited it as part of my tour of the piers last October and met with the fishers. It is a tremendous natural asset. It is a port that has not done as well as it should have in recent years. I went back there yesterday and announced a €25 million investment for a deepwater harbour.
Deputy Mac Lochlainn mentioned Urris and Greencastle in our own backyard. Since I became Minister, €200,000 has been invested in a new pier for Urris. The Greencastle breakwater project was a €12 million investment in something both of us have been pushing for ten years and has now been delivered. The fisheries school in Greencastle was allocated €1 million for a safety water pool. A support scheme was announced last week for inshore fishers. If I am right, it is the first time ever there has been a scheme to support our inshore fishers with up to €4,000 for each inshore fisher. Right throughout my time in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I have backed fishers to the hilt in every way I could through a historically difficult time while dealing with the challenge of Brexit
At the end of those contributions, Deputy O'Donoghue indicated that I had sold out 85% of our fleet. As Deputy O'Donoghue will know, unfortunately, 15% of our quota was impacted by the Brexit deal and agreement. We fought tooth and nail to protect the industry in very difficult negotiations. The Deputy will know how our good friend, Mr. Boris Johnson, put fisheries up there in lights as one of his targets and how one third of our fish is caught in British waters. That was a challenge we were up against. We fought tooth and nail to do the very best we could for the sector throughout that. Since that, we put together the task force to bring together all the voices in the sector to plot the way forward and then backed their proposals by putting in place those schemes. That is the track record of this Government. That is what this Government is doing to support and back our fishermen to ensure there are as many sustainable livelihoods as possible in the years ahead and, indeed, that our fishing resources are sustainable in a way that means fisheries will be here for many years to come and fishery stocks will be healthy.
The reason we are sticking with the amendment is that, again, it is 30 days, which all the Deputies themselves proposed. It was one of the key amendments, which is now in here and which they are all arguing against without it actually ever moving to Government. They just changed their position in opposition. I say to them to back their own amendment, stay consistent, which is the same thing they have been asking me to do, and back the proposals I have in the legislation, that is, the 30 days they initially sought to have in there and that actually is in there.
I asked the Minister a specific question so as to seek enlightenment on the justification for the 30 days and he has come back to us on that. I asked specifically whether that is consistent with other member states' positions in respect of preparing cases and whether there is scope, because of the particular conditions that exist in an Irish context, for a moving of that beyond the 30 days. It is really more from the point of view of seeking information that I posed the question. I just wanted to see what the member states' positions were in respect of the 30 days. Is there greater scope for furtherance of that position?
The Minister was right when he said it is bizarre. It is quite bizarre, to be quite honest, to think that we are only going to get two hours tonight to debate this hugely important issue of what is basically the destruction of the Irish fishing sector. We will only get through to five or six amendments and then it will be all over and gone, and that is it. Unfortunately, we need more time. It is a bizarre situation in which we find ourselves. It is a bizarre situation to think about amendments our Rural Independent colleagues and I put before the Minister. We will just mention the fee for when a person wants to appeal a wrongful conviction. There is no fee. The Minister never set a fee. This is very unclear in the Bill going forward. Imagine, no one knows what the fee will be. Today, it is the Minister. He might, in fairness, have some sympathy towards the fisherman in that he might put forward a very low charging fee. The next Minister might not be sympathetic and he or she might charge €10,000 for an appeal. I brought up that in an amendment that, unfortunately, we will not reach today.
The Minister said that I said we were rolling around laughing at Brexit. I did not say that. I actually said the nation was rolling around laughing last week in relation to the situation with the Russians where the Irish Government, Ministers and leadership could do absolutely nothing. It took fisherman to come in off the sea to do it. That is why the country was roaring laughing.
With regard to Brexit, I will not go there. I have said often enough that it was a shocking bad deal. It is scandalous beyond belief and it has wiped out the fishing industry. Basically, in the dying seconds I have to talk on these amendments - there is so much more on which we should have had ample opportunity to speak - I will go back to the people of Castletownbere, Schull, Glandore, Union Hall and Kinsale in west Cork and tell them this is a raw and shocking bad deal, and the Minister is at the helm. I plead with him today to pull back from the edge and stand and fight for the fisherman of this country.
I thank the Minister for his responses to the questions but he did not actually deal with anything I asked him with regard to the amendment. It is probably the only one that spoke to the amendment. We had a nice around-the-houses debate in general around fishing and stuff like that but that is not really the nature of what we should be discussing tonight.
Yes, I did support 30 days in the previous Bill and I would support 60 days in this Bill. I have no problem about that. I did not propose the removal of 30 days. I actually proposed replacing it with 60 days. There is a big difference in what the Minister actually outlined in his response. I would be very interested to hear the actual responses on what Deputy Sherlock asked about the EU and across the Border. It will be interesting to hear if the Minister would answer that question because that is relevant to what we are discussing tonight. What he has responded with so far only goes along with everybody else here in speaking total irrelevance with regard to the Bill.
Like Deputies Pringle and Sherlock, I refer to the 30-day rule and how it compares with the rest of Europe. I was not in the previous Dáil. Those on the Opposition bench did agree to 30 days but they are surely entitled to seek an extension to help fishermen. The 30 days is not long enough. That is the idea we have been trying to change the Minister's mind about by tabling amendments. The Minister talked about money being spent in all the ports. That money should be spent. It is well-deserved and should be spent but it is not being spent on what fishermen actually need and what they are telling us.
I asked the Minister a question earlier about whether he met fishermen who supported this Bill. I had left the Chamber by the time he gave the answer; I watched it on the television and I could not believe my ears when he said that he had. He did not talk to the fisherman today who protested at the convention centre. None of them agreed with the Minister. I recall being in the committee room the day the €25 that Deputy Collins spoke about was brought up. It was just a minimal fee that fishermen could appeal with. The response the Minister gave is that he cannot fix a fee because the next Minister might not agree with it. The Minister should set a fee. Let the next Minister, whoever he or she is, worry about changing it if he or she thinks it is not good enough. At least give fishermen something in that by having a small fee of €25, they can come back and appeal something . Again, like all the other speakers, I ask the Minister to start listening to the fishing industry.
Implement the changes that they are looking for and support them.
The time permitted for this debate having expired, I am required now to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 1 February: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed." Is that agreed? It is not agreed.
Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 52; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Hourigan, Neasa.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
- Varadkar, Leo.
Níl
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Berry, Cathal.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Canney, Seán.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Shanahan, Matt.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Jack Chambers and Brendan Griffin; Níl, Deputies Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Michael Collins.
Question declared carried.
Cuireadh an Dáil ar athló ag 11.45 p.m. go dtí 9 a.m., Dé Déardaoin, an 3 Feabhra 2022.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.45 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 3 February 2022.